>It seems both might be required in some measure to lead toward a more stable host-parasite dynamic.
>
>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8139710/bin/JVI.01950-20-s0001.pdf

Thanks also to Czech science (participation of a top Czech entomologist), we now know what the expression pathways are in KBV when pH and urea change. DWV-B resistance itself after recolonization is only a matter of time for complete destruction. It seems that whatever the beekeeper does, such as the migration of bee material and beekeeping inventory, the amount of acids and synthetics, all have an effect on virulence pathways and most importantly whether or not the collapse problem is fixed.

So it is a question of development (the demise of beekeeping), the direction is a question of new additives (drugs) together with new ways of expression of viruses that will either increase or decrease the hope for survival. It is not a spontaneous event. Man caused, man must fix.

Personally, and this is my opinion on the issue, I would be in favor of a total stop to all migration of bee colonies and the establishment of strict regulations. Until further notice and for severe fines and the cost of keeping bee colonies under the condition of zero tolerance for the migration of all beekeeping material. So whoever wants almond pollination must be present as a home breeder. Those who want queens must source from local local sources. Those who want nuclei or packets must be from local sources.

As long as such an intervention is not realized by a heavily commercial and amateur money-motivated part of beekeepers, the bee has not a chance to survive.

Gustav Palan

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html